Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Light Hawk Wings

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Borderline case, but the only user voting keep has admitted that legitimate sources are few and far between, and theones that have been found remain dubious per other commentors. Relisting again doesn't seem likely to change much of anything. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Light Hawk Wings[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivia. This article is about a fictional power source for a series DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable plot details. Fails the WP:GNG. Only references in the article are to fansites, and I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. They appear in at least six separate anime series along with the respective manga and in several feature length anime movies. One of the references is not from a fan site. Other non-fan site references are available, but there is no point in adding them if the article is going to be deleted. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now is the EXACT time they need to be added if they exist. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now has more refs than many if not most anime articles. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After some back and forth in the cites, I believe most now meet WP:RS. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, there are still fan blogs and fan sites. It needs to establish notability. Look at Itachi Uchiha, even that can barely establish notability and can even be redirected if a strong enough case is brought up. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from AnimeFringe article and the Funimation article, the rest of the references are not RS. Anime News Network's encyclopaedia area is not RS: See this, nor is MyAnimeList

Comment: This could be incorporated into the main Tenchi Muyo! article. Extremepro (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying for a wide range of sources, but that appears to have been a bad idea. I wrongly assumed the Anime News Network was RS because it appears to be the main and often only ref many anime articles have. So far having two good refs is better than what many Tenchi related articles have, but I do realize (per my first comment) that even ten good refs for this article would not be enough to keep it from being deleted or merged into another article not having even one good ref. I should have taken my own advice from above. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anime News Network's news, reviews, and articles are reliable sources, and that portion of Anime News Network is one of the best English language sources on anime that is available. However, the encyclopedia portion of the site contains mostly user-submitted content, so it isn't a reliable source. Many anime articles here link to the encyclopedia portion of Anime News Network in the external links section, but only the news, reviews, and columns should be used as an actual reference. Calathan (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like one of the Anime News Network refs is okay for a total of three RS refs. How many RS refs is it going to take to prevent this from being deleted? Digging up appropriate refs is a lot of work, so I don't want to needlessly waste my time. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the RS refs are now up to four, but it's slow going finding them. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.